Member Info for Pianista

Tav - I agree, whatever Kohn knows, best not to let on.

R4 interview: Interviewer 7/10. Interviewees 3/10.

There were a few great questions, but too many polticians' answers.

Kohn was impressive, but hedged on the question of an injunction. He didn't want to write off the possibility in front of COW, so he avoided the question by saying it's up to shareholders, which isn't credible when you're claiming 40% shareholder support, including from Hoskings. I think he knows there won't be one - instigated by Hoskings at least. Kohn is basically Plan B (Plan A was an injunction, now shelved).

In short, his mission is to investigate the deal, not to run an airline.

Anyway, that's how things stand today. Tomorrow is another story, LOL!

Indeed Ox42, the last GM was held on roughly 14 days notice. On the other hand, the Hoskings GM will be held on 28 days notice (not to be confused with the 21 day period till the issue of the notice). Strange.

But whenever it's held, the company will by then be a virtual shell if the asset sale completes on schedule.

Last year, EBITDA was a £5m loss. This year it will be positive. That's quite a turnaround. I wonder when the market will wake up!

Tav - as I said yesterday I can't see Tinkler offering any more than a few pence, if it happened at all. That wouldn't be much good to Hoskings. And to make matters worse for them, any capital injection by Tinkler would no doubt be extremely dilutive.

Tav - Hoskings could certainly apply for an injunction, but would they get it? If they thought it was a slam dunk, they'd have done it by now, surely.

So I remain very dubious about Hoskings applying, unless something unexpected happens to improve the chance of success, eg new information coming to light.

No real news. As expected, the Hoskings GM will take place in due course, but not until well after Flybe expects the asset sale to complete.

In the meantime, Hoskings have said nothing about an injunction, in particular in their letter to shareholders, enlisting their support. It would be extremely odd to keep mum in such a letter, about something as important as an injunction, if they were still planning to apply for one. I can only assume that they shelved the idea because they weren't confident of success.

962 - they are indeed "little conditions", that's why I use the word "engineer".

So for as long as the parties want it to happen, it will happen - failing the intervention of the SFO, the FCA, the Prime Minister, the SEC, Donald Trump....

I agree that Tinkler isn't planning a bid. He's just saying to Flybe:

"Don't worry if Connect pull out, I won't let you go under: I'll replace the Connect cash, and I'll put in some equity too".

The last bit is the thing that will worry existing shareholders, because of the inevitable dilution.

'It would be ironic if Stobart / Virgin realise what a black hole this is and remove their offer." - Ironic

Yes, Connect could probably pull out by engineering the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent, eg deliberately failing to agree a pension funding schedule.

But if that were to happen, it is difficult to see why anyone else, with the prospect of achieving fewer synergistic benefits than the consortium, would want to take it on.

The question is, what would he offer? The answer is, of course, as little as possible! My first stab at this runs as follows (feel free to shoot it down).

Allegedly, he’s looking to raise £50 – 60m. He’ll maybe put in some of his own money, so call it £60m.

£20m is needed for short term liquidity. So £40m left. After fees and whatnot, make that £35m.

Virgin say they’ll need to invest £80m. Tinkler wouldn’t need as much, but let’s say £20m.

That leaves £15m for shareholders, or 8p per share (there are 190m that he doesn’t already own).

More likely it would be, say, 5pps, which would be sold as an impressive-sounding “400% more than the current offer”.

However, I still think it could be just a game on his part, to put the willies up Stobart. After all, talking to people in the City is costing him nothing.

Thanks moniman - so Hoskings copied in the Takeover Panel and the FCA with their letter to the BOD, which was presumably in similar terms to the letter to shareholders.

I think I've seen it on this board that Hoskings voted for the change. They of course had no reason to believe at the time that Flybe were trying to hoodwink us. Ties in with their shock at what transpired in January.

If there is any substance to the story, Tinkler won't just need financial backing - from institutions who haven't even seen the books - he'll also need a legal means of stopping the asset sale, which does not require shareholder approval. The situation here is also clouded by the apparent eccentricity of the guy, and a possible connection with his ongoing legal wranglings with the Stobart board, which are coming to a head this month.

Moreover, if anything like this did happen, it wouldn't be of direct help to those who've already lost out. However it would at least demonstrate graphically that the company had been practically given away, and so would strengthen their case for compensation.

Nothing in Mail online.

Moniman - you say Hoskings have written to the SFO/FCA. I must have missed that. Where was that stated, please?

It'll be interesting to see how Flybe deal with notifications for the next GM, ie the one to remove Laffin etc.

Of course, it would suit them for THAT one to be declared invalid in due course!

Tav, so Flybe and/or its advisers were definitely at fault.

Bottom line, so far, is that the LSE failed to tell brokers what the GM was for. But why was that?

Regardless of whether the LSE was in turn properly informed by the company, the company is culpable because they should have checked that an important communcation such as this was actually reaching the intended recipients.

962.. the deal has been signed, the SPA is on the website. Completion is just awaiting one or two minor conditions to be satisfied. Like with a house sale, it can't now be gazumped.